Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs.

Standard Insurance Company,

Inc.,453 SCRA 482, March 16, 2005

Case Title : PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC., and ALEXANDER BUNCAN,

petitioners, vs. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and MARTINA GICALE,
respondents.
Case Nature : PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of
the Court of Appeals.

Syllabi Class :Actions|Pleadings and Practice|Parties|Permissive Joinder of

Parties|Requisites|Jurisdictions|Totality Rule|Due Process

482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Standard
Insurance Company, Inc.

G.R. No. 140746. March 16, 2005. *

PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC., and ALEXANDER BUNCAN,

petitioners, vs. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and MARTINA
GICALE, respondents.

Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Parties; Permissive Joinder of

Parties; Requisites;Where there is a single transaction common to both plaintiffs, they have
the same cause of action against the defendants.Permissive joinder of parties requires that:
(a) the right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions; (b) there is
a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants; and (c) such joinder is not
otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction and venue. In this case,
there is a single transaction common to all, that is, Pantrancos bus hitting the rear side of
the jeepney. There is also a common question of fact, that is, whether petitioners are
negligent. There being a single transaction common to both respondents, consequently, they
have the same cause of action against petitioners.
Same; Same; Same; To determine identity of cause of action, it must be ascertained
whether the same evidence which is necessary to

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
 483

VOL. 453, MARCH 16, 2005 483

Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Standard
Insurance Company, Inc.

sustain the second cause of action would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in
the first.To determine identity of cause of action, it must be ascertained whether the same
evidence which is necessary to sustain the second cause of action would have been sufficient
to authorize a recovery in the first. Here, had respondents filed separate suits against
petitioners, the same evidence would have been presented to sustain the same cause of action.
Thus, the filing by both respondents of the complaint with the court below is in order. Such
joinder of parties avoids multiplicity of suit and ensures the convenient, speedy and orderly
administration of justice.
Same; Same; Same;Jurisdictions; Totality Rule;Under the totality rule where there
are several claims or causes of action between the same or different parties, embodied in the
same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes
of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different
transactions.Section 5(d), Rule 2 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: Sec. 5.Joinder of
causes of action.A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as
many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following
conditions: x x x (d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery
of money the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. The above provision
presupposes that the different causes of action which are joined accrue in favor of the same
plaintiff/s and against the same defendant/s and that no misjoinder of parties is involved.
The issue of whether respondents claims shall be lumped together is determined by
paragraph (d) of the above provision. This paragraph embodies the totality rule as
exemplified by Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129 which states, among others, that where there
are several claims or causes of action between the same or different parties, embodied in the
same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes
of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different
transactions.
Same; Due Process; The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or
an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek for a reconsideration of the action
or ruling complained of.We have consistently held that the essence of due process is simply
an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to ex-
484
 484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Standard
Insurance Company, Inc.

plain ones side or an opportunity to seek for a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. Petitioner Pantranco filed an answer and participated during the trial and
presentation of respondents evidence. It was apprised of the notices of hearing issued by the
trial court. Indeed, it was afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain its side of the
controversy. Clearly, it was not denied of its right to due process. What is frowned upon is
the absolute lack of notice and hearing which is not present here.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Government Corporate Counsel for petitioners.
Oliver C. Ong for respondents.

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision dated July 23
1

1999 and Resolution dated November 4, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
2

No. 38453, entitled Standard Insurance Company, Inc., and Martina Gicale vs.
PANTRANCO North Express, Inc., and Alexander Buncan.
In the afternoon of October 28, 1984, Crispin Gicale was driving the passenger
jeepney owned by his mother Martina Gicale, respondent herein. It was then raining.
While driving north bound along the National Highway in Talavera, Nueva Ecija, a
passenger bus, owned by Pantranco North Express, Inc., petitioner, driven by
Alexander Buncan, also a petitioner, was trailing behind. When the two vehicles were
negotiating a curve along the highway, the passenger bus overtook

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Hilarion L. Aquino and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon U.
Mabutas, Jr. and Wenceslao I. Agnir, Jr. (all retired); Rollo at pp. 24-30.
2 Id., at pp. 46-47.

485

VOL. 453, MARCH 16, 2005 485

 Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Standard
Insurance Company, Inc.

the jeepney. In so doing, the passenger bus hit the left rear side of the jeepney and
sped away.
Crispin reported the incident to the Talavera Police Station and respondent
Standard Insurance Co., Inc. (Standard), insurer of the jeepney. The total cost of the
repair was P21,415.00, but respondent Standard paid only P8,000.00. Martina Gicale
shouldered the balance of P13,415.00.
Thereafter, Standard and Martina, respondents, demanded reimbursement from
petitioners Pantranco and its driver Alexander Buncan, but they refused. This
prompted respondents to file with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 94, Manila,
a complaint for sum of money.
In their answer, both petitioners specifically denied the allegations in the
complaint and averred that it is the Metropolitan Trial Court, not the RTC, which
has jurisdiction over the case.
On June 5, 1992, the trial court rendered a Decision in favor of respondents
3

Standard and Martina, thus:

WHEREFORE, and in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered in

favor of the plaintiffs, Standard Insurance Company and Martina Gicale, and against
defendants Pantranco Bus Company and Alexander Buncan, ordering the latter to pay as
follows:

1. (1)to pay plaintiff Standard Insurance the amount of P8,000.00 with interest due
thereon from November 27, 1984 until fully paid;
2. (2)to pay plaintiff Martina Gicale the amount of P13,415.00 with interest due thereon
from October 22, 1984 until fully paid;
3. (3)to pay the sum of P10,000.00 for attorneys fees;
4. (4)to pay the expenses of litigation and the cost of suit.

SO ORDERED.

_______________

3 CA Records at pp. 34-37.

486

486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
 Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Standard
Insurance Company, Inc.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated July 23, 1999, affirmed the trial
4

courts ruling, holding that:

The appellants argue that appellee Gicales claim of P13,415.00 and appellee insurance
companys claim of P8,000.00 individually fell under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
municipal trial court. This is not correct because under the Totality Rule provided for under
Sec. 19, Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, it is the sum of the two claims that determines the
jurisdictional amount.
xxx
In the case at bench, the total of the two claims is definitely more than P20,000.00 which
at the time of the incident in question was the jurisdictional amount of the Regional Trial
Court.
Appellants contend that there was a misjoinder of parties. Assuming that there was,
under the Rules of Court (Sec. 11, Rule 7) as well as under the Rules of Civil Procedure (ditto),
the same does not affect the jurisdiction of the court nor is it a ground to dismiss the
complaint.
xxx
It does not need perspicacity in logic to see that appellees Gicales and insurance
companys individual claims against appellees (sic) arose from the same vehicular accident
on October 28, 1984 involving appellant Pantrancos bus and appellee Gicales jeepney. That
being the case, there was a question of fact common to all the parties: Whose fault or
negligence caused the damage to the jeepney?
Appellants submit that they were denied their day in court because the case was deemed
submitted for decision without even declaring defendants in default or to have waived the
presentation of evidence. This is incorrect. Of course, the court did not declare defendants
in default because that is done only when the defendant fails to tender an answer within the
reglementary period. When the lower court ordered that the case is deemed submitted for
decision that meant that the defendants were deemed to have waived their right to present
evidence. If they failed to adduce their evidence, they should blame nobody but themselves.
They failed to be present during the scheduled hearing for the reception of their evidence
despite notice and without any motion or explanation. They did not

_______________

4 Rollo at pp. 25-30.

487

VOL. 453, MARCH 16, 2005 487

 Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Standard
Insurance Company, Inc.

even file any motion for reconsideration of the order considering the case submitted for
decision.
Finally, contrary to the assertion of the defendant-appellants, the evidence
preponderantly established their liability for quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil
Code.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the Appellate Court
in a Resolution dated November 4, 1999.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorariraising the following assignments of
error:

WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT OF
THE ACTION CONSIDERING THAT RESPONDENTS RESPECTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST PETITIONERS DID NOT ARISE OUT OF THE SAME TRANSACTION NOR
ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACTS COMMON TO BOTH PETITIONERS
AND RESPONDENTS.

II

WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE TO RESPONDENTS

CONSIDERING THAT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AND LAW APPLICABLE
IN THE CASE AT BAR, RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT SHOWN ANY RIGHT TO THE
RELIEF PRAYED FOR.

III

WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS WERE DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHT TO DUE

PROCESS.

For their part, respondents contend that their individual claims arose out of the same
vehicular accident and involve a common question of fact and law. Hence, the RTC
has jurisdiction over the case.
I
Petitioners insist that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the case since the cause
of action of each respondent did
488

488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
 Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Standard
Insurance Company, Inc.

not arise from the same transaction and that there are no common questions of law
and fact common to both parties. Section 6, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of
Court, provides:
5

Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties.All persons in whom or against whom any right to
relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged
to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided
in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any
question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in
the action; but the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or
defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in
which he may have no interest.

Permissive joinder of parties requires that: (a) the right to relief arises out of the same
transaction or series of transactions; (b) there is a question of law or fact common to
all the plaintiffs or defendants; and (c) such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the
provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction and venue. 6

In this case, there is a single transaction common to all, that is, Pantrancos bus
hitting the rear side of the jeepney. There is also a common question of fact, that is,
whether petitioners are negligent. There being a single transaction common to both
respondents, consequently, they have the same cause of action against petitioners.
To determine identity of cause of action, it must be ascertained whether the same
evidence which is necessary to sustain the second cause of action would have been
sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first. Here, had respondents filed
7

_______________

5 The complaint was filed prior to the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
6 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Seventh Revised Edition at p. 81.
7 Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81909, September 5, 1991, 201 SCRA 343.

489

VOL. 453, MARCH 16, 2005 489

Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Standard
Insurance Company, Inc.

separate suits against petitioners, the same evidence would have been presented to
sustain the same cause of action. Thus, the filing by both respondents of the complaint
with the court below is in order. Such joinder of parties avoids multiplicity of suit and
ensures the convenient, speedy and orderly administration of justice.
Corollarily, Section 5(d), Rule 2 of the same Rules provides:

Sec. 5. Joinder of causes of action.A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative
or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to
the following conditions:
xxx
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money the
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.

The above provision presupposes that the different causes of action which are joined
accrue in favor of the same plaintiff/s and against the same defendant/s and that no
misjoinder of parties is involved. The issue of whether respondents claims shall be
8

lumped together is determined by paragraph (d) of the above provision. This

paragraph embodies the totality rule as exemplified by Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg.
129 which states, among others, that where there are several claims or causes of
9

action between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the
amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action,
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different
transactions.
As previously stated, respondents cause of action against petitioners arose out of
the same transaction. Thus, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the
claims.

_______________

8 Regalado at p. 71.
9 Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.

490

490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Standard
Insurance Company, Inc.

Respondent Standards claim is P8,000.00, while that of respondent Martina Gicale

is P13,415.00, or a total of P21,415.00. Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 129 provides that the
RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all other cases, in which the demand,
exclusive of interest and cost or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to
more than twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00). Clearly, it is the RTC that has
jurisdiction over the instant case. It bears emphasis that when the complaint was
filed, R.A. 7691 expanding the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan, Municipal and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts had not yet taken effect. It became effective on April
15, 1994.
II
The finding of the trial court, affirmed by the Appellate Court, that petitioners are
negligent and thus liable to respondents, is a factual finding which is binding upon
us, a rule well-established in our jurisprudence. It has been repeatedly held that the
trial court's factual findings, when affirmed by the Appellate Court, are conclusive
and binding upon this Court, if they are not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight
of some fact or circumstance of significance and influence. Petitioners have not
presented sufficient ground to warrant a deviation from this rule. 10

III
There is no merit in petitioners contention that they were denied due process.
Records show that during the hearing, petitioner Pantrancos counsel filed two
motions for resetting of trial which were granted by the trial court. Subsequently,
said counsel filed a notice to withdraw. After respondents had presented their
evidence, the trial court, upon petitioners motion, reset the hearing to another date.
On this date, Pantranco failed to appear. Thus, the trial court warned Pan-

_______________

10 Mirasol, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128448, February 1, 2001, 351 SCRA 44.

491

VOL. 453, MARCH 16, 2005 491

Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Standard
Insurance Company, Inc.

tranco that should it fail to appear during the next hearing, the case will be submitted
for resolution on the basis of the evidence presented. Subsequently, Pantrancos new
counsel manifested that his client is willing to settle the case amicably and moved for
another postponement. The trial court granted the motion. On the date of the hearing,
the new counsel manifested that Pantrancos employees are on strike and moved for
another postponement. On the next hearing, said counsel still failed to appear. Hence,
the trial court considered the case submitted for decision.
We have consistently held that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity
to be heard, or an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek for a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. 11

Petitioner Pantranco filed an answer and participated during the trial and
presentation of respondents evidence. It was apprised of the notices of hearing issued
by the trial court. Indeed, it was afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain
its side of the controversy. Clearly, it was not denied of its right to due process. What
is frowned upon is the absolute lack of notice and hearing which is not present here.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated July 23 1999
and Resolution dated November 4, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
38453 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

Panganiban(Chairman), Corona,Carpio-Morales and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, assailed decision and resolution affirmed.

_______________

11 Zacarias vs. National Police Commission, G.R. No. 119847, October 24, 2003, 414 SCRA 387.

492

492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Blanco vs. Philippine Automotive Mfg. Corp.

Notes.While the rule allows a plaintiff to join as many separate claims as he

may have, there should nevertheless be some unity in the problem presented and a
common question of law and fact involved, subject always to the restriction thereon
regarding jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties. (Republic vs. Hernandez, 253
SCRA 509[1996])
Dismissal is not the remedy for non-joinder of partiesthe remedy is to implead
the non-party, claimed to be the necessary or indispensable, in the action. (Vesagas
vs. Court of Appeals, 371 SCRA 508[2001])

o0o

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.